Sunday, February 24, 2008

I've not been closely tracking the issue of red light cameras since I left the ACLU, but I was interested to see this comment over at ConchoInfo:

Lubbock is giving us some interesting insights on how many cities view red light cameras. They recently received a report on the first 6 months of operation. The results are so bad, the committee charged with overseeing the program is recommending it be discontinued. It is apparent that the cameras are not really improving public safety. Accidents at intersections with cameras are up by 52% while accidents at other intersections are down by 2.7%. The number of injuries is down, but one commenter on the study said that could be due to a number of factors, including the number of passengers in each vehicle. Right out of the gate, their program seems to be failing, and deserves to be discontinued.

Cameras usually don't reduce the number of accidents. But the post-camera rear-enders are generally less severe than the pre-camera t-bones, so they do serve a purpose even in cities where the overall number isn't reduced.

Have you driven around your hometown in the last few years? Red-light runners there are worse than I've ever seen in any other city in Texas.

Rage is right. I provided some review for an analysis of red-light cameras in Milwaukee and the overwhelming evidence is that rear-end collisions increase and the more likely to be severe t-bone accidents decrease.

Revenue is also a big factor, though the stream tends to diminish greatly once drivers get used to the system.

Rear-end collisions increase because drivers who would ordinarily push a yellow are stopping quickly. The following drivers expect them to push the light and act accordingly. This is where the added accidents come from.

Weird. We have not seen crash stats in Houston yet, but I feel like we'd have some inkling by now if there'd been a spike. The local reporters have been pretty good at pursuing red light camera stories, and I feel sure someone would have tipped them to this if this were going on. I did an archive search on chron.com for "red light cameras" anyway, and found plenty of stories about their implementation and about who gets caught by them, but no inkling of an increase in crashes. But I'll keep looking, and we'll see what the official data says.

Thanks for noticing us at conchoinfo. We have the good luck to have Greg Mauz as a local resident, he's the National Motorists Assoc point man on this issue.

The new Chap. 707 takes a lot of the "fun" out of these cameras, but most often, they are much more money machine than safety device. A scandalously common trick has been to shorten yellow intervals at intersection with cameras. Great idea for camera revenue or body shops, guaranteed to increase rear-end accidents.

Just for fun, we still elect our police chief, one of the largest cities to still indulge that perversion. Charter measure to change it failed by 10 points last Nov. Election is coming up May, it's about to become more fun than the law allows, we'll keep you posted.

If it was "all about the money" it didn't quite pan out since State Rep. Carl Isset from Lubbock passed a bill last session that divides the fine proceeds between the city and the state. Isset was opposed to red light cameras in general and this was his way of screwing those cities who were in it "for the money."

You nailed it, 9:04, Isset did a great job leveraging the strong but not quite majority opposition to RLCs into busting the revenue incentive. I hope he's getting credit in his hometown, because you're right, he largely took away the "cash cow" factor critics were worried about, and that will limit their expanded use more than anything.

I'm not much for anecdotal evidence from drivers who've seen red lights run, rage. That level of debate doesn't get us very far. Now if Tyler's accident and injury data were worse than elsewhere and it were possible to identify intersections where the issue is red light running, that's one thing. Even then, there are other solutions besides cameras and ticketing.

The Texas Transportation Institute (at A&M) says that you get more safety benefit from lengthening the yellow by one second than you do issuing tickets with cameras. Why not just do that? Answer: $$$

FWIW, Tyler's a place with major rush hour traffic but also times and places where there's little traffic at all. The idea that somebody might stop at the light then run it if nobody's coming - which I've definitely seen in Tyler - I guess, doesn't completely offend me the way it may some folks. I think the laws are there to preserve safety, not just for their own sake or to mulct drivers with fines.

Now, the kids at Robert E. Lee HS driving fast cars dangerously around South Tyler is a whole 'nuther matter. From a pure traffic safety perspective, I'd support increasing the driving age - I don't think fines will solve that problem. Young people are just bad drivers, as any insurance actuary can tell you, probably for reasons related to brain development.

I'll give you that Tyler traffic "sucks balls," as you eloquently put it, rage, especially anywhere near Broadway. But on the anecdotal vs. statistics, on this issue it's a big deal because EVERYBODY thinks they're an expert since they personally saw somebody break X, Y, or Z traffic law. It's a particularly annoying aspect of the debate on this topic.

Also, RLCs wouldn't do a thing to solve Tyler's traffic problem, which stems from rapid growth, poor planning, and underspending by county commissioners who wanted to run on tax cuts instead of build adequate infrastructure. You can't fix that with cameras.

Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

Initial gross revenue estimates for the red light camera system during Dallas' 2007-08 fiscal year were $14.8 million, according to city records. The latest estimate? About $6.2 million. City Manager Mary Suhm on Friday estimated net revenue will fall $4.1 million under initial estimates.

That leaves Dallas government with a conundrum. Its red-light camera system has been an effective deterrent to motorists running red lights – some monitored intersections have experienced a more than 50 percent reduction. But decreased revenue from red light-running violations means significantly less revenue to maintain the camera program and otherwise fuel the city's general fund.

Exacerbating the drain is a new state law requiring that municipalities send half of their net red-light-running camera revenue to Austin and post signs alerting drivers of upcoming camera installations. Also, city records indicate Dallas has lengthened yellow-light intervals on 12 of its 62 monitored traffic signals, giving motorists more time to beat a red light.

City transportation officials say they're brainstorming potential changes to the red-light camera program, which is financed by the general fund, before a planned update to the City Council next month on the program's status.

"We did not anticipate having such success so early with the number of people not running red lights," said Zaida Basora, Dallas' assistant director of public works and transportation. "If you have success in safety, you don't have a lot of success in revenue. The other side is the people will go back to what they were doing before without the cameras."

Curtailing expansion?

Ms. Basora says one likely recommendation to the council is scaling back Dallas' plans to expand the red-light system to 100 cameras.

The council in September voted to expand its camera vendor contract with Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services, from five years and $13.3 million to seven years and $29.1 million, in order to install the additional cameras.

Initial plans envisioned most of the additional cameras operating by spring. Ms. Basora said installing fewer cameras would probably be more cost-effective.

Another idea staff may recommend to council members is idling cameras on a rotating basis, which the city already has begun doing, or operating them at different intersections where red-light running is more habitual.

In the first case, cameras will remain perched above the intersections they monitor but won't snap pictures of red-light runners, and therefore, won't generate $75 civil citations, which the city mails to the offending vehicles' owners.

Ms. Basora noted, however, that most motorists won't realize this and behave as if the cameras are operational.

Dallas pays ACS a guaranteed $3,799 per month for each operational camera, and just a fraction of that to maintain inoperative cameras.

Safety vs. money

The results of Dallas' 2-year-old red-light camera system are mixed blessings for City Hall, Mayor Tom Leppert said.

"The good news is it's having the effect everyone in this community wants: fewer red lights being run. The goal was not to make money on this," Mr. Leppert said. "But these are numbers and realities we'll have to deal with."

The mayor added that under no circumstances does he expect a decrease in red-light camera revenue to affect the city's public safety budget, although the overall budget may not enjoy as much revenue, perhaps resulting in the city streamlining other items.

Council member Angela Hunt, long skeptical of the reasoning behind such camera systems, says she's not surprised Dallas is faced with altering its efforts to reduce red-light running.

"The idea of the red-light cameras is that they'll be used as a revenue generator instead of being implemented for public safety purposes. It's imperative that the council review this program, especially when the results don't align with the initial performance projections," Ms. Hunt said.

She cited national statistics suggesting that the cameras increase rear-end collisions.

Dallas officials haven't yet determined if such crashes, or crashes in general, have increased or decreased significantly because of red-light cameras.

But in Lubbock, the City Council voted 4-3 last month to terminate its red-light camera system, in part because of an increase in rear-end crashes.

Jim Baxter, president of the National Motorists Association, which opposes red-light camera systems, says he suspects Dallas' system will either meet its demise, or be noticeably scaled back.

"They're in between a rock and a hard place, and when the money goes away, the cameras go away," Mr. Baxter said. "Probably the only way they can sustain it is to raise the violation rates, despite all the protestation that this is about safety and not about revenue."

Dallas' red-light camera system will still generate revenue, Ms. Basora said, "but it won't be considerable."

"The golden question is how many cameras do we need? We'll have to look at the numbers carefully," Dr. Garcia said. "But for me, this has always been about safety, has always been about awareness. We did not do this for the money."

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."